Post by Ellis on Jun 13, 2009 22:14:27 GMT -5
...I'd like to comment on THIS:
Haha I love it when stuff like this is in the news. When we were doing a future week CNN had an article on the future I think I linked here somewhere.
Brown Plan to Reform Politics
Alternative Vote is just another name for Instant-Runoff Voting the system we just used! ;D ;D ;D
Here's more:
Voting Reform Options
There's actually more good stuff in that second link that I cut. Interesting stuff!
OK. First off, for anyone not aware of this, I'm British - to be more precise, I live in South Wales. So as far as I'm a supporter of anyone right now, it'd probably be the Lib Dems. (For those of you not familiar with Britain's current political climate, there's a massive expenses scandal that's going across all of the three top political parties, to the extent that we don't have much Government left right now!) Their support, apart from a groundswell among areas that have lots of largely young students or professionals (like myself), is largely spread across many areas.
Now here's the problem with that - and I believe it's one that's shared in many countries including America. I used to live in a place called Radyr that is largely Conservative-supporting. In the smaller "local" elections, where several representatives could be voted for in each large town, there hasn't been and probably won't be any chance of anybody but the incumbent Conservative candidate getting into power, regardless of the qualifications or competence of that candidate. The result is that anyone who refuses to vote Conservative (as I do, I disagree with many of their policy decisions as well as some of the things they've done) is effectively wasting their vote. If I wanted to vote Lib Dem, Labour or Greens, or any other minority party, my vote might as well be torn up and thrown into the waste paper basket.
Now in the National elections, the area is much wider, and Radyr is on the outskirts of the Cardiff Central constituency - which, among other things, includes two widespread University complexes that house some twenty thousand people between them. The vast majority of students and faculty members here support the Lib Dems. Great for me, sure; but what happens to all the other Radyr residents? Now their votes are wasted. They could vote Conservative every single election and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. No Conservative or Labour candidate is ever likely to gain this constituency, at least for the forseeable future.
I'm a strong supporter of the PR system in principle, because the current system strongly favours parties whose supporters are massed in specific areas. Generally speaking the Conservatives are favoured by the rural middle Englanders, Labour by the residents of industrial towns, and the Liberals in the University towns. The trouble is that Britain's large towns and cities have historically been built around centres of industry and farming. While huge swathes of the country are filled with people who have a strong bias towards Labour or the Conservatives, the same can't be said about the Liberals since their support tends to be much more spread-out. The result? As it's said in the article above, the Lib Dems get 22% of the popular vote but 9% of the seats in Parliament.
Now here's the catch-22. We don't have an equivalent of the "judicial, executive, legislative" branches over here. Politics can be brought into the criminal courts, and frequently is - look, for example, at "Sarah's Law", the kneejerk reaction of our politicians to the murder of a young girl by a serial sex offender. This was proposed as our equivalent to "Megan's law", and it's a horribly draconian bit of legislation that would in all likelihood be completely ineffective at stopping further attacks on children (it's stated aim). This, effectively, was a piece of criminal law that was lobbied for and pushed through by various people for reasons that were purely political - they were looking for a populist measure that would get them elected into office.
The way our political system works, if someone were to propose a change to the voting system, it would effectively have to be approved by the incumbent Government. A Government who, whatever their alignment, would have effectively been elected through the old voting system... you can see the problem here!
Haha I love it when stuff like this is in the news. When we were doing a future week CNN had an article on the future I think I linked here somewhere.
Brown Plan to Reform Politics
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set out wide-ranging proposals to "clean up" and modernise British politics in an effort to reassert his authority.
He promised a consultation on changing the voting system - but he said there were "no plans" for a referendum on this issue before the next election.
He also pledged tougher sanctions for MPs guilty of misconduct, including the power for constituents to recall MPs.
Tory leader David Cameron said the "real change" needed was an election.
And he accused Mr Brown of trying to "fix" the electoral system in his party's favour by scrapping the current first-past-the-post system, which allowed voters to get rid of "weak, divided and incompetent governments and that is what we should be doing now".
He said proportional representation was a "recipe for weak coalition governments" and Mr Brown had only started talking about it "because he fears he is going to lose".
...
"Just to be clear: the prime minister's statement will not - and was never going to - endorse a change of voting system nor any particular system"
Nick Robinson
On electoral reform, Mr Brown said he did not favour proportional representation for Westminster elections as he did not want to break the link between MPs and constituencies.
But he said a debate on whether the vote system should change.
Ministers are thought to have discussed an "alternative vote" system to replace the current first-past-the-post method.
Campaign group Unlock Democracy said they welcomed Mr Brown's "rhetoric" on constitutional reform but it was no substitute for action.
Unlock Democracy director Alexandra Runswick said: "This afternoon, Gordon Brown was reduced to performing the role of a bingo caller, listing a whole series of potential reforms yet offering almost nothing of substance."
He promised a consultation on changing the voting system - but he said there were "no plans" for a referendum on this issue before the next election.
He also pledged tougher sanctions for MPs guilty of misconduct, including the power for constituents to recall MPs.
Tory leader David Cameron said the "real change" needed was an election.
And he accused Mr Brown of trying to "fix" the electoral system in his party's favour by scrapping the current first-past-the-post system, which allowed voters to get rid of "weak, divided and incompetent governments and that is what we should be doing now".
He said proportional representation was a "recipe for weak coalition governments" and Mr Brown had only started talking about it "because he fears he is going to lose".
...
"Just to be clear: the prime minister's statement will not - and was never going to - endorse a change of voting system nor any particular system"
Nick Robinson
On electoral reform, Mr Brown said he did not favour proportional representation for Westminster elections as he did not want to break the link between MPs and constituencies.
But he said a debate on whether the vote system should change.
Ministers are thought to have discussed an "alternative vote" system to replace the current first-past-the-post method.
Campaign group Unlock Democracy said they welcomed Mr Brown's "rhetoric" on constitutional reform but it was no substitute for action.
Unlock Democracy director Alexandra Runswick said: "This afternoon, Gordon Brown was reduced to performing the role of a bingo caller, listing a whole series of potential reforms yet offering almost nothing of substance."
Alternative Vote is just another name for Instant-Runoff Voting the system we just used! ;D ;D ;D
Here's more:
Voting Reform Options
The expenses scandal has led to renewed calls for reform of the way MPs are elected. Gordon Brown is expected to tell the Commons that there should now be a debate on changing the current way MPs are elected.
What is said to be wrong with the existing system?
Critics of the "first past the post" system, where candidates who get the most votes in individual constituencies are elected, say it is unfair and does not reflect the number of votes cast for different parties. They point out that Labour was elected in 2005 despite only getting 35% of all votes cast and the system punishes smaller parties. Despite getting 22% of the vote in 2005, the Lib Dems only won 9% of seats. Reformers say too many votes are effectively wasted in safe seats where either Labour or Conservatives have large, in-built majorities, and this depresses turnout. Results, they say, increasingly hinge on the preferences of a small number of voters in a handful of swing constituencies which is undemocratic.
What is the prime minister proposing?
He is expected to say there should be a national debate on whether the UK should change the way it elects its MPs. A cabinet committee has started looking at the issue. It is understood Mr Brown will not endorse change at this stage or say he favours any particular system but is arguing instead that there must be widespread consultation on the way forward - and no change without public support in a referendum.
So could the system change before the next election?
No. This is the start of a process that would take many months or years to come to any fruition. The Conservatives, who oppose changes to the system, say Mr Brown only wants to change the system because he knows he is going to lose the election.
What do critics of the system want?
Historically, most of those seeking electoral reform have urged a form of proportional representation, or PR, where the number of seats a party wins is more closely aligned with the number of votes they get. The Liberal Democrats have long backed this. Some within Labour are known to support a different mechanism known as alternative vote. Under this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference and anyone getting more than 50% in the first round is elected. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates. This process continues until there is a winner. While not proportional, this aims to ensure majority backing for those elected.
Is there a single system which reformers support?
No. Different electoral systems are now in place across the UK, all with their own advocates.
How does it work in Scotland and Wales?
...
Are all the systems used proportionate?
No. The Mayor of London and other UK mayors are elected through a system known as the supplementary vote. Voters choose their first and second preferences and a candidate can only be elected in the first round if they get 50% of the vote. If no-one achieves this, all but the top two candidates are eliminated and their second preferences redistributed to the candidates still in the race. The candidate with the most votes is then elected. This is only suitable for electing a single office holder or MP.
What is said to be wrong with the existing system?
Critics of the "first past the post" system, where candidates who get the most votes in individual constituencies are elected, say it is unfair and does not reflect the number of votes cast for different parties. They point out that Labour was elected in 2005 despite only getting 35% of all votes cast and the system punishes smaller parties. Despite getting 22% of the vote in 2005, the Lib Dems only won 9% of seats. Reformers say too many votes are effectively wasted in safe seats where either Labour or Conservatives have large, in-built majorities, and this depresses turnout. Results, they say, increasingly hinge on the preferences of a small number of voters in a handful of swing constituencies which is undemocratic.
What is the prime minister proposing?
He is expected to say there should be a national debate on whether the UK should change the way it elects its MPs. A cabinet committee has started looking at the issue. It is understood Mr Brown will not endorse change at this stage or say he favours any particular system but is arguing instead that there must be widespread consultation on the way forward - and no change without public support in a referendum.
So could the system change before the next election?
No. This is the start of a process that would take many months or years to come to any fruition. The Conservatives, who oppose changes to the system, say Mr Brown only wants to change the system because he knows he is going to lose the election.
What do critics of the system want?
Historically, most of those seeking electoral reform have urged a form of proportional representation, or PR, where the number of seats a party wins is more closely aligned with the number of votes they get. The Liberal Democrats have long backed this. Some within Labour are known to support a different mechanism known as alternative vote. Under this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference and anyone getting more than 50% in the first round is elected. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates. This process continues until there is a winner. While not proportional, this aims to ensure majority backing for those elected.
Is there a single system which reformers support?
No. Different electoral systems are now in place across the UK, all with their own advocates.
How does it work in Scotland and Wales?
...
Are all the systems used proportionate?
No. The Mayor of London and other UK mayors are elected through a system known as the supplementary vote. Voters choose their first and second preferences and a candidate can only be elected in the first round if they get 50% of the vote. If no-one achieves this, all but the top two candidates are eliminated and their second preferences redistributed to the candidates still in the race. The candidate with the most votes is then elected. This is only suitable for electing a single office holder or MP.
There's actually more good stuff in that second link that I cut. Interesting stuff!
OK. First off, for anyone not aware of this, I'm British - to be more precise, I live in South Wales. So as far as I'm a supporter of anyone right now, it'd probably be the Lib Dems. (For those of you not familiar with Britain's current political climate, there's a massive expenses scandal that's going across all of the three top political parties, to the extent that we don't have much Government left right now!) Their support, apart from a groundswell among areas that have lots of largely young students or professionals (like myself), is largely spread across many areas.
Now here's the problem with that - and I believe it's one that's shared in many countries including America. I used to live in a place called Radyr that is largely Conservative-supporting. In the smaller "local" elections, where several representatives could be voted for in each large town, there hasn't been and probably won't be any chance of anybody but the incumbent Conservative candidate getting into power, regardless of the qualifications or competence of that candidate. The result is that anyone who refuses to vote Conservative (as I do, I disagree with many of their policy decisions as well as some of the things they've done) is effectively wasting their vote. If I wanted to vote Lib Dem, Labour or Greens, or any other minority party, my vote might as well be torn up and thrown into the waste paper basket.
Now in the National elections, the area is much wider, and Radyr is on the outskirts of the Cardiff Central constituency - which, among other things, includes two widespread University complexes that house some twenty thousand people between them. The vast majority of students and faculty members here support the Lib Dems. Great for me, sure; but what happens to all the other Radyr residents? Now their votes are wasted. They could vote Conservative every single election and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. No Conservative or Labour candidate is ever likely to gain this constituency, at least for the forseeable future.
I'm a strong supporter of the PR system in principle, because the current system strongly favours parties whose supporters are massed in specific areas. Generally speaking the Conservatives are favoured by the rural middle Englanders, Labour by the residents of industrial towns, and the Liberals in the University towns. The trouble is that Britain's large towns and cities have historically been built around centres of industry and farming. While huge swathes of the country are filled with people who have a strong bias towards Labour or the Conservatives, the same can't be said about the Liberals since their support tends to be much more spread-out. The result? As it's said in the article above, the Lib Dems get 22% of the popular vote but 9% of the seats in Parliament.
Now here's the catch-22. We don't have an equivalent of the "judicial, executive, legislative" branches over here. Politics can be brought into the criminal courts, and frequently is - look, for example, at "Sarah's Law", the kneejerk reaction of our politicians to the murder of a young girl by a serial sex offender. This was proposed as our equivalent to "Megan's law", and it's a horribly draconian bit of legislation that would in all likelihood be completely ineffective at stopping further attacks on children (it's stated aim). This, effectively, was a piece of criminal law that was lobbied for and pushed through by various people for reasons that were purely political - they were looking for a populist measure that would get them elected into office.
The way our political system works, if someone were to propose a change to the voting system, it would effectively have to be approved by the incumbent Government. A Government who, whatever their alignment, would have effectively been elected through the old voting system... you can see the problem here!
